Ron---You don't understand, how many times do we have to go over this? In Muktananda's tradition, there's a transfer of Shakti from the BODY(s) of Muktananda to the BODY(s) of the disciple. Therefore, the "me" in that context refers to the body, (and of course all of attributes that make up a person, whether Enlightend or not). Do you agree that your Guru is a person, as opposed to other persons? Then he's an individual, and in due course of conversation, may say "I", and "me" often. Nobody is saying there's a delusional false "I" or "me" that your Guru identifies with. If he's Enlightened, then there's no such false "I"; however, there's still a body, mind, actions, reactions, conditionings, manner of social interactions; ....etc; all of which make up the "I" that separates your Guru from other people. You will agree that your Guru is not MMY, correct? Refer to "Prior to Consciousness", the transcribed statements of Nisargadatta Maharaj, page 31. The disciple asks, "Ramana Maharshi was a great sage, he was unknown in India. When Paul Brunton wrote the book in English about him, everybody went to see him and he became well known"
MAHARAJ: "I agree with that. Ramana Maharshi was discovered by Paul Brunton and I was discovered by Maurice Frydman". So! From the King of all Neo-Advaitins, Nisargadatta Maharaj, we have the use of "I" twice in two lines, proving there is an "I"; (since, obviously), this "I" doesn't refer to the delusional "I" which didn't exist in his case at the time he spoke that, but rather, everything - every property, quality, or attribute that made him an individual person, as opposed to other persons. One of those differences between him and RM was that the latter was "discovered" by Paul Brunton (for Westerners), and Maurice Frydman discovered Nisargadatta Maharaj. Again, hopefully for the last time, the "I" for Enlightened people is a valid referent to the entire spectrum of properties (beginning with the body(s); that makes up an individual person, and which distinguishes that person from others. But most important, the "I" in reference to Enlightened Gurus refers to a particular POV, differing from the POV's of other Gurus. In some cases, the POV's are closely allied, such as Nisargadatta Maharaj and RM. In other cases, the POV's differ; say MMY vs Eckart Tolle. In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Comment from post:--"But Shakti comes from the teacher, igniting the student's Shakti." > > HR: Again, the central issue is that the fallacy is that a "me" gains enlightenment. As long > as there is a me that is there, there is further to go. Cognitions belong to those having > them, absolute IS all there is in Enlightenmenet. > > Not unusual for people to have this glimpse, then the mind reroots. Then such comments > as I am enlightened and yes the me does return, there is an ego, then they can be > forgiven. Well, just because this is the experience where the mind rerooted, it is not the > experience for those enlightened. For those with this rerooting of the mind, there is more > to go. If one is one's one guru, has the inner Guru as the guide, ( weather as form or > absolute concept), and one thinks they have arrived, it is sad because there is more to go > but they are not going to hear one word of that. > > The scriptures such as the one I posted, Ramana Maharishi and all the great sages of the > past and now explain from their own existence that this is the case, there is no me and > there never was. The me is ego and it can not exist in enlightenment- it is either one or > the other. > > These are the general points from my Guru, and the other two recently enlightened echo > the same independant of one another. > > I can only say that I have had the dharshan of MMY, Mother Meera and MY Guru. In > addition, I have had shatipat with my Guru, as well as taking it from a healer and also from > a deeksha giver with kalki- so I have all this to compare with. > > In my case, it is the most significant with where I am now, it has awakened the kundalini, > and the on going guidance ensures that things are in balance and progress is taking place. > I notice great progress with about 10 fellow sadakas, it is very impressive. > > The reason that Kundalini is finished in enlightenment, and the reason shakti does not > come from an enlightened teacher is there is no persona there, Guru is only consciuous > > Hridaya Puri >
